Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 47-minute class, Ven Jampa Gendun opens with a sharp student challenge: if recognizing a pen immediately triggers the concept “pen,” is genuinely direct perception even possible? He works through the answer — direct perception and conceptual overlay alternate across sixty-four mind moments so rapidly that only the first moment qualifies as a valid cognizer. He then contrasts how the Sūtra School and the higher Middle Way schools define ultimate consciousness differently, before moving into a systematic breakdown of the eleven types of form, with particular attention to the five sense powers as subtle matter located within the coarse physical organs, each with a specific shape (eye sense like a utpala bud, ear sense like a birch knot). The session closes with students practicing formal debate on logical pervasion, working through concrete examples such as “man and human” and “man and Australian.”
File metadata (for organising)
File: 14 CT 1988 04 12.mp3
UUID: c7575e0c-8e4c-4e22-adc4-e73174636793
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-04-12
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 47.1 minutes
Words: ~4,396
I told you that, Okay, you see that object. Your eye consciousness sees that object. If I said, Oh, that’s a Chorten. Before I told you that name, did your eye consciousness see a Chorten? It didn’t.
What did it say? Wasn’t that object a Chorten? Yeah. Did your eye see that Chorten? The eyes.
Yeah. Your object sees. Did your eye consciousness Do you have to know the name of something to see it? Do you have to know the name of everybody in this room in order to see them? No.
So you don’t have to know the name to have a direct perception of an object, because that object is a specifically characterized phenomenon. If you would see it What would you see it? You would say, Oh, that’s If you didn’t know the name of the pen but you thought about this thing, you would say, Oh, that’s a writing instrument, or something like that. You would apply some other name, but the pen would still be appearing to you. But you don’t have to know the name of it.
The name of it is your generic image, which you’re applying to a specifically characterized phenomenon, which is you know, oh, it’s very detailed. Does that mean that this isn’t really a direct perception then, that it is somehow coming from the conceptual part of the mind as well? When you think pen? No. When I when I see this, and I see it as a kind as a solid object, as something that, like you say, doesn’t exist, that somehow exists in dependence upon me.
Yeah. Is that I mean, you’re saying that that’s a that that’s a direct perception. But it seems to me that if we pull it apart and then we see that that’s not really, that’s not ultimately what it is, then somehow this direct perception is really coming from the conception part of, you know, like it’s a label. So it’s not really a direct perception at all, is it? Because you don’t know the name?
No. Because because you’re labeling it, that’s why it’s been directing the scene. Because you’re labeling it. You know, you’re putting something onto it rather than seeing it’s Well, I don’t know. But what I mean is, you know, rather than just seeing it as it’s not really a direct perception if I’m labeling this as pen.
That’s right. So what we’re saying here that is a direct perception is not ultimately a direct perception. Why? It’s something that you can you write? When you can see the pen, and your baby sees the pen, doesn’t he?
See? Yeah? Yeah. But doesn’t know the name of it. Right.
But he can’t think about the pen because he doesn’t have a he doesn’t have hasn’t developed a a Mhmm. But don’t we don’t we think of it like the minute I see this? You know, maybe there’s a space between the minute I see it and the minute I think about it. Yeah. Mhmm.
It’s not very much. Yeah. Don’t if there’s anything. Yeah. Because I don’t I can’t feel any space between that.
So it seems that it’s not really a direct perception at all. Because the minute I see it You know it? I’m Yeah. Well, that’s true. Yeah.
Yeah. The conceptual mind. So is there a gap between that or Between what? Between directly Perceiving? Perceiving and conceiving of it.
The mind is there’s sixty four four mind moments, know, fingers now. Yeah. So during that period, you’re having direct perception and conceptualizing. Because I know that we have what had written down before having it as a the first moment is a direct perception. No.
That was for a valid cognizer. Sorry. For a valid cognizer. Yeah, conceptual and non conceptual minds are alternating very quickly back and forth. So that’s why when you’re overlaying various images and ideas upon objects that you So there’s actually a direct perception without Yeah, there’s a direct perception.
Without a conception, like without Yeah. But the conceptual overlaying of your generic image upon objects is occurring so quickly that it’s almost as if you didn’t see the object itself. That’s why we say only the first moment is a valid cognizer. After that, the object is becoming mixed with your idea about the object. It’s happening so fast.
So if if you don’t conceptualize, does that mean you’re seeing ultimate truth or seeing things through great perception? So if you see So according to According to the Sūtra School, when you see any impermanent phenomena, you’re seeing an ultimate truth. But merely seeing that ultimate truth does not act as an antidote to ignorance, a misconception of, for example, the nature of the self. It has to have more than that. In the upper school, seeing ultimate truth is a direct antidote to ignorance.
Yeah. But it seems like the more you can sexualize, the more ignorant you become of that object. I mean, there was one school. There was a school in a Chinese one Chinese master who lived in, I think, the fifteenth century in Tibet. His name was Hoshan, and he put forth this theory that all conceptual thought was that’s what was bad.
And he should throw away all conceptual thought. And he was defeated in a debate by, I think it was Kamalaśīla or something like that. Yeah, that’s what he is saying, similar to your position. I was talking about we have to identify the object of negation even though it’s appearing We have to identify it conceptually. We have to conceptually understand what direct perceiver is, what’s appearing.
Isn’t that impossible to No, no. Because if you’re conceptually working out what your direct perceiver is perceiving, more than the direct perceiver. Like, if you like, you directly perceive something, so you have to conceptualize and work out what that is. And once you’ve worked it out, then it’s an abstract perception. So might as well just start off with the first thing that you directly perceive.
What you’re saying is, are there three possibilities or are there any? Yeah, maybe we’ll continue this next week. I don’t know, this is kind of this is I don’t feel very satisfied. We can continue this, but is this very relevant that I’m talking about? Truth, though.
That’s right. But it’s not necessarily gonna cure your ignorance. That’s right. Not the right connection. That’s right.
But the higher schools, it it would be saying, we disagree with that, that there is no actual perception of ultimate truth because the lower school’s got it all wrong, and they think that they’re actually getting at the object via their specific things to the coerce it. Yeah, because we said the difference between I mean, in general we can say that ultimate consciousness is that which fully and without mistake perceives its object in all the schools. What does that mean? For the Sūtra School, an ultimate consciousness, objects which are the object of an ultimate consciousness are, for example, impermanent phenomena because we directly perceive them the way they exist, the way they appear fully in all their details. Therefore, these things are ultimate.
The table is an ultimate truth because it’s an object of an ultimate consciousness. It appears to truly exist, it truly exists, and it appears in all its detail. But for the upper schools, because they say, Oh, what appears to an ultimate consciousness is not a table, but the emptiness of the table, because the table that what appears to exist truly, in fact, does not exist truly. So they’re saying, for them, only emptiness is an ultimate truth because things don’t exist the way they appear. So that’s not that sort of veil.
To one, there’s a certain appearance of ultimate truth, but it’s actually only occurred, and behind that, or somehow beyond or beneath that is a more fundamental Actually, way they’re positing We’re talking about ultimate consciousness, conventional consciousness. The way they’re talking about them are the same. They say ultimate consciousness is one which perceives its object fully and in all its detail. It’s an ultimate consciousness. Conventional consciousness is one which is obscured from seeing its object fully and in detail.
So, in sūtra school, this means an ultimate consciousness would be perceiving any impermanent phenomena because it sees them in their full detail, you know, this chip on the table, etcetera, fully detail and fully in the sense that it sees it as truly existent, that’s the way it exists for the Sūtra School. Higher school, middle way for example, same. Ultimate consciousness sees it in detail and fully. Let’s go back to sūtra school conventional consciousness. Conventional consciousness is obscured from seeing its object.
Why? Any permanent phenomenon is seen through a generic image, mental image, and that’s an obscuration. Thought consciousness obscured from seeing object itself because it’s always being seen through the medium of a generic image, a generic image, a mental image. So it’s obscured from seeing the object directly. That’s why it’s called a conventional consciousness.
Again, for the higher school than middle way school, a conventional consciousness is that which is obscured consciousness, but here obscured means from seeing the ultimate mode of existence of the object. It’s obscured from seeing the final nature, which is the object’s emptiness. Ultimate consciousness sees the object in detail fully, and fully in the sense that it sees that it’s empty because that’s the way it really exists. It appears one way and exists another, and it sees that. It knows that it doesn’t really exist the way it appears.
Therefore, it’s called an ultimate consciousness because it fully understands the object. I wanted to Okay. I I wanted to go a little bit further in our our our into established bases. So we’re going to begin by continuing in the division of thing. Thing is divided into three, as it says on this chart.
Form, consciousness, and non associated compositional factor. So we’ll begin with the Okay. We’ll begin with the So, you know, this isn’t much of a definition. The definition of form is that which is suitable to be formed. But, you know, and that’s not really could never stand as a definition actually.
But anyway, that’s the definition that’s given. That which is suitable to be a form is the definition of form. Clear in knowing that which is clear in knowing is the definition of consciousness. We’ve talked about that. That which is clear in knowing is the definition of consciousness.
And the definition of non associated compositional factors is a compounded object which is neither form nor consciousness. A compounded phenomena which is a compounded object which is neither form nor consciousness. So essentially, we’re talking about some impermanent some thing which is neither form nor consciousness, but it’s still a thing, it’s still impermanent. But we’ll go into details about that later. So the first of these was form.
Form is again subdivided. You know, it has eleven There’s a total of eleven. Eleven divisions, I think. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven. Yeah, eleven.
Okay, the first are the five sense powers. Or Yeah, five sense powers. For example, eye sense, ear sense, nose sense, tongue sense, body sense. Okay. I give a rough definition of sense power.
It is an uncommon empowering condition of a consciousness uncommon empowering condition of a consciousness. So then we’ll make that a little clear. We’ll clear that up, what that means Uncommon empowering condition of consciousness. So we’re talking about the five senses, the five senses eye, ear, nose, tongue, body. The senses are not the organs.
They are not the coarse organs like this white eyeball here. That’s not an eye sense or an eye sense power. That’s not what we’re talking about. It’s not the organ of the eye, ear, nose, or tongue or body. Nor are the eye senses consciousnesses, nor are the various sense powers consciousnesses.
Now, they are clear matter, a very subtle matter which is not visible to the eye. They are located in the coarse organ itself. There is subtle matter which is within the eyeball. This subtle matter is the eye sense power. The reason they are called powers is that they give their respective dominance or power with regard to certain objects.
Because the stimulus enters through the I sense power, an eye consciousness arises. If the stimulus would be transmitted through the ear sense power, then an ear consciousness would arise. So it empowers specific types of consciousness. It is the determinate condition, or the empowering condition, determining whether an eye consciousness arises, whether an ear consciousness arises. Is determined by the sense power, which of these sense powers the stimulus is being transmitted through.
For example, an eye sense power has power with respect to color and shape, but not with respect to sound. So, we can’t hear through our eyes. Can you give a general word that explains the coarse matter that the subtle matter exists? The coarse matter? The coarse matter is this white eyeball that you can see with your eye?
I’ve written here sense powers are subtle matter within the coarse matter of The organ. The physical organ. It’s the gross organ. You are going to hear some synonyms sometimes with I, I sense power, I constituent, and I source are synonyms, using different contexts. Over the course of listening to different discussions, you’ll hear these various uses of terms, and all these terms are synonymous: I, I sense power, eye constituent, and I source.
Each of these senses is arranged in a specific the particles have a specific arrangement. The matter is shaped in a specific way to give you an idea. For example, the eye sense. Now, this is a subtle matter within the eyeball. It’s said to be like the bud of a Utpala flower.
I don’t have any idea what a Utpala flower is. But anyway, the eye sense power is is in the shape of a Utpala bud. The nose sense power No, ear sense power is like the knot of a birch tree. It’s the shape of a knot of a birch tree. I don’t know what that means either.
Okay. Of a knot of a birch tree. The nose sense power is like two fine hollow needles at the root of the nostrils. Two fine hollow needles at the root of the nostrils. That’s the NoseSense power.
Nose. Nose. And the tongue sense power is like half half moons, having only the area having the area of only the point of a hair throughout the center of the tongue. So what they’re saying is that these eyesense powers, tongue sense powers are like half They’re only the size like the tip of a hair, but they’re located throughout the tip of the tongue. Like taste buds.
Something made like taste buds maybe. Anyway, that’s the tongue sense power. And the body sense power is like skin, or throughout the body. So that’s the body sense power. The mental sense power is not physical.
The mental sense power is form of moment of consciousness. It acts as a sense power for the mental consciousness. Any formal moment of consciousness, like an eye consciousness, can act as a sense power inducing a mental consciousness. Any consciousness, for example an eye consciousness, can act as a sense power, which induces a mental consciousness. You see something, and then can have in dependence upon seeing that, a mental consciousness can arise where, for example, you could think about it.
In that case, I consciously would be what we call the sense power. It would be the uncommon empowering condition of a consciousness. Pardon? Knot of a birch tree was an ear sense power. So I don’t know if that has any scientific basis or not.
Don’t know. Knot, not, k n o t. Maybe we’ll go on I don’t know. Maybe we’ll go which Maybe we’ll go on a little bit further. Now maybe let’s let’s should we look at the homework?
Yeah. Okay. Let’s yeah. Let’s let’s practice a little bit with some it’s an easy subject. We’ll disregard any inexact opinions.
We’ll Okay. Now, we’re going with with respect to man and human, what what is the pervasion? With respect to man and human, what is the pervasion? Inclusive, exclusive, three possibilities or four possibilities? We’ve got a four, we’ve got a three.
Four. Do I hear an inclusive? Can’t four. Can’t be four. She says it’s four.
Any other differences of opinion? How many say three? Any fours? Inclusive, exclusives? Lisa, what do you think?
About it again. Okay. Let’s approach it very logically. First we want to know, is there anything which is both? Does man and human have a common locus?
Is there something which is both man and human? That’s the first thing we should ask ourselves. What are you Yeah? A man. A human man.
He is a human male. Can you be a little more imaginative girl? Yeah, okay. Is Dale Okay, we take Dale as the subject. Is Dale a man?
Yeah. Is Dale a human? Yeah. Okay. What have we Out of these four we’ve excluded, what have we excluded from these four?
We’ve excluded Okay. So we begin by seeing whether there is something which is both. If there’s nothing which is both, then our job is finished. So we might as well start with the easiest one. So we start with exclusion.
So we we Okay. Now, we have to go on now. But at least we eliminated one possibility. Now, we can go over to see whether Is every case of man a case of human being? And is every case of human being a man?
We’re going to see further on what is relationship. Is every case of man a human being? Yes. Is every case of a human being a man? No.
What have we excluded? Inclusive. So we’ve excluded inclusive. Okay, but we’ve also told ourselves something else. We know that they’re not inclusive, and if this would have been human over here, if we were to start over here, is every case of human a man?
We said, No. So immediately we could have got rid of inclusive, but we wouldn’t have known which of these two yet, three or four possibilities. So then we go on, Was every man a human being? Is every human being a man? Every human being is not a man.
Which one does that eliminate? We’re left with three. We say that the relationship between man and human is three possibilities. What did we say in in terms of how we’re going to debate this? And which is pervaded?
So we’ve determined in our own minds that which is So I’m I’m debating with you and I say, With respect to man and human being, what is the pervasion? And you say, Three possibilities. Hopefully. No, no, hopefully. You say what you like.
Okay. And then I say, Which Okay. This doesn’t say it, does it? Well, yeah, it doesn’t give the question. He would ask, What is the what is the pervasion?
What is the pervasion? No, which pervasion? He would say, Which pervades which? Which pervades which? Okay?
So you say there’s three possibilities. So during a debate I would ask, Okay, which pervades which? Which of these pervades which? Which pervades which? Invades which?
You would say which? I’m not sure what you mean by which pervades which. Okay. Man is pervaded by being human, isn’t he? Yeah?
Man is pervaded If it is a man, it must be human. So I would ask you, Which pervades which? And you could answer, If it is a man, it is pervaded by being human. Or necessarily. You know, you could substitute in your mind, or you could actually substitute your own debate If it seems simpler, If it is man, it is necessarily human.
Or, If it is man, isn’t necessarily pervaded by being human. Then give the non pervasion. What would be the non pervasion? That’s right. If it’s a human, it’s not or is not pervaded by being a man.
Then give an example. You would say that, and I would say, For example? Woman. Woman. Is a woman a human being?
Is a woman not a man? Isn’t a Yes. I’ll leave it alone. Linda, With respect to man and human, what is the pervasion? Judy debate with Linda.
What is pervasion? You only have four possible answers. Which pervades which? I think maybe if we take the form, If it is a man? No, you wouldn’t need to give an example.
Then you would give the, If it is a man, it’s necessarily a woman. If it is a man, it’s necessarily a human. But, then you would go on to give the counter pervasion or the non pervasion. If it is a human, it’s not necessarily a man. When she gives that example, you could go on and say, Is a woman a human being?
And she’d say, And you could say, Why? You could go on. And then you could say, Is a woman not a man? Yes. Why?
So you could carry the debate even further. Sometimes when the person makes a mistake, of course it would be necessary to continue the debate on from there, but we stop there because it seems perhaps not so worthwhile to carry the debate any further than that. Okay, maybe if we try another one. Yeah, that’s right. That’s right.
Turn it around. No. One person is the is the the opponent. That’s right. That’s right.
Yeah. But, I mean, over a period of time, one of you might sit down, the other stand up. You might trade, but during any course of one debate, one is the What do say? The adversary? One is putting the questions and one is answering during the entire course of that debate.
Let’s try it again. Now what the pervasion with respect to man and Australian? Aussie. So first we look first we look in your own mind. Is there anything which is both?
So that would immediately, in your within your mind, you could exclude what? Yeah, that’s right. Now is So then, still within our own mind, we’re thinking, if it is a man, does it have to be an Australian? No. So that immediately gets rid of inclusive.
Now we’re still thinking, No, doesn’t have to If it’s an Austrian, does it have to be a man? No. That gets rid that, so then we say, Ah, it must be four possibilities. This is what you’re thinking in your mind. Okay.
Can we have two volunteers to work this through? Okay. Would you like to pick up a point? Anyone? Peter?
Can you have a So with respect to men in Australian? With respect to man and Australian, can you have What is the pervasion? What is the pervasion? Can you have something that’s a man in an Australian? Okay.
If we would do it the traditional way, then you would say, It’s not four possibilities, but we Do I agree with him? No, it doesn’t Yeah, you could agree with him. Could just I think perhaps for our purposes, would answer, he says four possibilities, you could say, Why? Why? He may give the correct answer, but the examples he gives may be incorrect.
He may come up with the correct answer, through a process of wrong reasoning. He says four possibilities, and you say, Why? First, when we analyze it for four possibilities, we give an example, as it says on this sheet, of something which is both. He says, Why? What?
No, I’m sorry. You say, Give an example of something which is both. Give an example of something which both. I myself. I myself.
I Isn’t it? Are you going to accept that? Oh, yes. I haven’t seen the passport, I believe. Is I myself Australian?
Well, he is, Peter. He didn’t say Peter. He said, I myself. You have to take him for your name. Whatever he says, that’s what he means.
I don’t accept it. So you say, Is I myself Austrian? Is I myself Austrian? It’s a It’s a it’s not four possibilities. Not four possibilities is because you cannot give something which is both.
Yes, I can. Okay. Then you say, give something which is both. Hawke. Okay.
You carry on. Any examples of something that’s not of it? Okay. Well, you say you could go If you wanted to at that time, you could stop and say, Is Bob Hawk a man? Is Bob Why?
Is Bob Hawk an Australian? Why? But perhaps you don’t want to. But anyway, for some time you may. Okay.
Then then you ask for Yeah. As it says on the sheet, give an example of something which is neither. Nancy Reagan. Is Nancy Reagan a man? Is she So you would you would Is Nancy Reagan not a man?
Is Ronald Reagan a man? Yes. Is Ronald Reagan not an Australian? Yes. Can you give an example of something that is an Australian, not a man?
So if you if you could, maybe choose a partner, and and we’ll just put up a simple one. Table. Table. Okay. Okay.
So maybe maybe for, like, just a small group, maybe threes, and try to This this is Okay. Yeah. First work this one, and then woman and human. You know, try to help each other out. But you can pick one as the One will give the question, and one will answer, but And one can, help.
Okay. And then woman and and could you debate one with Denny to show them how it goes? And then Judy will debate with Denny. If you you two could might like to listen to Judy debate Denny. No.
No. This is one thing. This is this. This is a? This is b.
What is the relationship between man and woman and impermanent?